[wyager]

> Public safety regulations are not pointless red tape.

This is the typical refrain of people who are trying to pitch pointless red tape; "it's about public safety!"

Of course, 90% of regulations in any given industry have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them. Even those regulations that are nominally intended to increase safety are often counterproductive, and cause more utility loss than they prevent.

> Is your position that we would be better to just ignore fire and other safety rules for all hotels?

Are you really under the impression that the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring fire code? That's insane for multiple reasons, but mostly that all residential buildings (including AirBnBs) have to obey fire code already.

> In light of a clear rationale for such regulations

You're making two false assumptions here; one is that most regulations even nominally have a "clear rationale", and the second is that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't bother to look beyond first-order costs imposed by proposed regulations. It's quite likely that many safety-oriented regulations claim a great deal more lives than they save, since the increased economic burden of those regulations sucks up resources that would otherwise be used on e.g. healthcare or personal enjoyment. On an individual level, the difference is very smal, but multiplied over the millions of people who are affected by the regulation it adds up to a lot of man-hours and lives lost.

> That would be like a race between two cars, one that has a 40 mile/hour speed limit, the other no speed limit. Which car would you pick?

The unlimited car is clearly superior, so you're not exactly helping your own argument here.

[stuckagain]

Actually no, owner-occupied residential buildings do not have to meet codes, under the liberal belief that it's OK for a person to subject themselves knowingly to certain hazards. However it is not OK for that owner to subject others to those hazards, which is why hotels and rental properties have to meet those codes even as the codes change. Therefore it is a regulatory advantage of AirBNB that unregulated residences are offered up as hotels without meeting the codes.

[okreallywtf]

You said in a lot less words the same thing I just finished typing.

To expand on your point, I have friends who have been occupying a nearly 100 year old house for 30+ years who in the last 2 or 3 started renting it on AirBnB. I lived there while in college for a few years as well. It had live knob-and-tube wiring [1] whose asbestos sheathing had long since flaked off or were ready to flake off at the slightest touch and many other not-even-close-to-current-code issues that were 100% legal due to it being grandfathered in. When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this.

Unfortunately it varies it seems whether or not BnB's (air or not) are subject to extra regulation, even if its not the same as a large hotel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring

[wyager]

> When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed

Exactly. Any house that has not been renovated recently enough to adopt modern safety regs is unmarketable.

> but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this.

So you're complaint is that in a hypothetical universe where rennovations didn't involve bringing buildings up to code, AirBnBs would be unsafe? That's true, but irrelevant. We don't live in that universe.

[okreallywtf]

But we live in the universe where you can 100% guarantee that all AirBnB's have up to date building codes because they've been renovated? Do you not see the issue with that logic? Can you not imagine a circumstance when a house was renovated right before a major change in building codes and didn't have to be renovated again prior to being a AirBnB? I'm not entirely sure you aren't just trolling at this point.

Of course, this doesn't really matter since as has been stated by myself and others: normal building codes that are sufficient for a homeowner are not necessarily sufficient for other occupants who are paying to stay a night there, but your logic is terribly flawed anyways and it must be pointed out.

[mcguire]

Renovations don't automatically involve bringing buildings up to code. Renovations aren't required, either.

[digitaltrees]

> Any house...not renovated..is unmarketable.

Only because there is (i) enough modern housing stock (with safety reg compliance) to provide other options, (ii) knowledge sufficiently available for the public to know the difference, (iii) strict and consistent enforcement to over come the collective action problem.

I would welcome any evidence or analysis showing a free market would create sufficient incentive for home builders and landlords to voluntarily adopt this level/kind of fire or personal safety standards. To me the market would clearly incentive most structures be build at the lowest cost. I would gladly stand correct, I don't have enough knowledge to know what the facts would support.

[digitaltrees]

Read mcguire's post above, the point is that residential fire codes are insufficient and less safe for a property that is being used as a bed and breakfast, and the industry group that represents bed and breakfast operators says it puts them at a cost disadvantage.

[wyager]

> Actually no, owner-occupied residential buildings do not have to meet codes,

You are just straight up incorrect. No two ways about it. I'm actually a little surprised someone could have this little exposure to the residential regulatory bureaucracy. Maybe that's why you can support it.

Here are some (not all) of the residential building codes that apply here.

https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/single-family/training/docs/14...

http://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes

[stuckagain]

Those are the codes for building a new building. The codes change but the buildings don't have to. You can occupy a 100-year-old building in San Antonio if you feel like doing it. No regulatory bureaucracy will be concerned.

[wyager]

Any time you do a renovation you have to bring everything up to code. No one is going to stay in a rotting 100-year-old house that's never been renovated.

[digitaltrees]

So again, do you acknowledge that, while these regulations many not be appropriate and should be changed, regulations of this type may be ok?

[adamsea]

Just want to point out that the parent post cited specific evidence, with links to a fairly reputable source (wikipedia), to support their claims, which your counter-post lacks.

[wyager]

What is your point? I'm making an argument that can stand or fall on its own. Dropping links that don't add any semantic value is a cheap trick to buy the appearance of a strong argument, but doesn't change the meaning of anything in the post. The GGP post just added some links to stories about historical building fires, which we all already knew existed and added nothing of substance to his argument, but it still managed to convince you that it boosted the credibility of all the other unrelated stuff he said.

[okreallywtf]

> I'm making an argument that can stand or fall on its own.

Not when your argument depends on that 90% number being correct. Some people might read that and say "wow really, 90%?" and that might actually persuade them. When you make a quantitative statement that has no backing its not up to you whether it stands on its own or not - if your numbers are not correct then it does not. You could say "some" instead of 90%, but you can't even say "most" without some kind of proof to back it up but you don't even do that, you just pick a really high number that would be very persuasive to anyone who doesn't question whether or not that number is true. Its lazy at best and intentionally misleading at worst.

[digitaltrees]

Read the links. They are not eye candy, they have actual substantive data and detail that support the premise I am making.

[okreallywtf]

Do you have citations for any of this? Where are you getting your 90% numbers?

The parent post doesn't cite specific numbers about how many regulations were put into place as a direct result of a tragedy but they do directly cite some examples, which you do not.

Nobody (literally, anti-regulation straw man arguments not withstanding) opposes pointless regulation and nobody would be opposed to periodic reviews of existing regulations to ensure they are still applicable. The problem is that anti-regulation arguments tend to demonize nearly all (if not all) regulations as being burdensome. Having arbitrary rules [1] about regulations does nothing for progressing the conversation. If you want to be taken seriously you need to cite examples of these regulations, its easy to find ones that are directly related to past tragedies, it should be as easy to cite your examples?

> Are you really under the impression that the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring fire code? That's insane for multiple reasons, but mostly that all residential buildings (including AirBnBs) have to obey fire code already.

I don't think you are taking into account two things:

1) The fire codes for residential homes and for hotels are very different. It makes sense that they are, they are very different structures but that doesn't mean that people who stay in an AirBnB shouldn't expect some extra safety features like emergency lighting and more smoke alarms, fire extinguishers etc. If you were staying on the 2nd floor of a house that you did not live in and there was a fire and there was no power or emergency lighting or exit signs or fire extinguishers and only 1 smoke alarm on the other side of the house and you had to find your way out in the complete dark how would you feel?

2. There are a lot of grandfathered-in houses out there that have 1 fire alarm, no CO alarm and totally out of date electrical wiring. These same big old houses also have a high chance of being the kind of place that is used as an AirBnB (in my experience).

There is (like always) a reasonable middle-ground here - AirBnB's should be subject to more regulation than normal homes because a howeowner (unlike a tenant) knows the home, has chosen to live there and accepted the possible risks and has the opportunity to ensure the home is up to current codes (even if it is grandfathered in). However it makes little sense to apply the same regulations a huge hotel building with massive occupancy with a (typically) 1 to 2 story structure that you could likely escape much easier due to the size and due to the fact that a worst-case scenario has a much lower deathtoll (even if a single death is a tragedy).

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/11/22/donald-tru...

[digitaltrees]

I agree that the regulations should be tailored to the facts; it isn't appropriate to apply the same fire code to a small home (even where it is used for AirBnB) that applies to a large hotel building.

I would add in support of your argument that AirBnB should not have an economic advantage as a result of the different regulations. I do think commerce benefits from having fair and equal playing field / rules and suffers when companies can benefit from regulator arbitrage.

[digitaltrees]

Read my sources and tell me this is not a consistent problem. Oakland just experienced a similar tragedy.

> "This is a typical refrain.." Saying this is a common refrain doesn't make it false. It just shows that you have no counter argument...

> "Of course, 90% of regulations have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them... Do you have any actual support for this premise? Read the thesis I cited, read almost legislative history for any safety regulation and you will see regulators citing specific data on harm to safety and how the regulation would improve safety. For that matter google a basic traffic study for an intersection and you will see the same type of analysis. Please don't pretend that regulators and law makers don't give a shit or try to do their jobs well; our institutions, and the people that run them do care and to a good job. I think the progress humanity is better now that it was when these institutions did not exist. They are not perfect, but the cynical view that they are solely focused on preserving their own position is not consistent with easily verifiable evidence of their intent expressed in writing. I would also note that many government employees could make more in the private sector which implies they are incentivized by some other means.

Further, you have the causality exactly backwards. Regulations and related bureaucracy are created to address a problem, and will continue to exist as long as that problem exists. There were no nuclear regs/bureaucrats before there was nuclear technology. Should we get rid of the city fire department the second there isn't a fire in a city? Or the military the minute we are not at war?

However, I will acknowledge that you are right that bureaucracy can become entrenched, and we should protect against that by insuring proper legislative, judicial and executive oversight. We should also set up other necessary checks and balances, and create cultural norms that prevent individual and systematic corruption. Your answer, to just eliminate regulations, wont solve this problem it will just shift the power and corruption to the private bureaucracy of corporations.

> "Are you really under the impression the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring the fire code?..." Yes, it is my position that AirBnB has a cost advantage relative to hotels because it doesn't have to (i) comply with regulations, including but not limited to, fire regulations, (ii) pay taxes to compensate for the maintenance of government provided infrastructure that experiences increased wear and tear as result of higher traffic and use of public services (like fire and ambulances), (iii) doesn't have to cover liability insurance for injury experienced buy guests because it doesn't own the property.

> "You're making two false assumptions, one is that most regulations... have a "clear rationale"..." Read the court cases and legislative sessions where these regulations are debated in depth and tell me that there isn't a "clear rationale" when they are enacted. They often have detailed statistical reports.

> "...second...that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't...look beyond first order costs..."

What evidence do you have to support that regulators don't look beyond first-order costs? Or are you just making that up?

You are right that some regulations have unintended consequences; and when that happens, regulators should collect data, design a superior regulation and change it. That happens all the time and I would support such a process. What is your alternative? To get rid of all regulation and only focus on maximizing utility? That would result in an absurd outcome where there is no law and there are not enforceable contracts because every law and every contract imposes a cost to utility of some party.

Let's get one thing straight, I am not arguing all regulation is good. I am arguing that if society has determined that a regulation is necessary, then ALL parties should follow the same rules, that's it. If society revises a regulation in light of unintended costs, then great.

> "the unlimited car..." You are ignoring the purpose of my argument. My point is that pretending like AirBnB / Uber are superior to traditional competitors because they offer better service rather than competing unfairly by ignoring regulations (and their associated costs) is like saying a car with an unlimited speed limit is faster than on that has to obey 40mile/hour; it is ignoring the essential question which are: which car will win a race with the same rules. If commerce is a competition, companies need to compete with the same rules or we are guaranteeing victory for anyone that breaks the law.